Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] Better type names for int64 RFC

On 8/22/14, 11:09 PM, Pierre Joye wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 8:05 AM, Rasmus Lerdorf <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 8/22/14, 10:46 PM, Pierre Joye wrote:
>>> In other words, it would be nice to see more developers actually
>>> porting extensions to realize the amount of changes are introduced by
>>> NG and by the int64. The sooner is in order of magnitude must larger.
>>> It is not a bad comment, only a fact. Given that, before we choose to
>>> say that it is fine for one part to change APIs/Macros signatures or
>>> names and not for another, we should really get a better view of what
>>> has actually changed. And how we can deal with our old habit to
>>> maintain one tree for many major PHP versions. For many extensions, I
>>> do not think it will be possible, or with unreadable code with 2-3x
>>> more #ifdef all over the place.
>>
>> I knew you would make this comparison. I am willing to suffer porting
>> pain if it gets me a 20% performance boost. I am completely unwilling to
>> suffer any porting pain because Pierre has decided he doesn't like the
>> names of some macros.
> 
> Sorry Rasmus, this reply is irrelevant or off base. What in my reply
> makes you tell that it is about my taste? 

There is no technical reason to change IS_LONG to IS_INT along with the
others in that category. It is purely a
taste/purity/questionable-consistency thing and doesn't need to be done
to solve any real technical problem.

-Rasmus

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org

iEYEARECAAYFAlP4MvEACgkQlxayKTuqOuDvOwCfSE3wVuOat7q6PldO+eOfgPFq
SEwAniO3OSbl832nVR2s0Vdh7HLWqiHW
=wQdr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----